Gonna front-end this piece with a few words. Have a concern that, written immediately as the players left court, with the Raducanu interview driving the narrative, it’s overly unsympathetic. (Despite being an opinionated middle-aged bloke, I don’t think I’m generally unsympathetic).
In my role as a pathway coach I am *definitely* not lacking in empathy or sensitivity towards issues around confidence or mental health. I make some sharpish points, here, about the need to be tough at all levels of sport – particularly, of course, the elite level – but maybe it’s a mistake to omit the balancing-points around player welfare and ease. (I guess I took these to be understood: and that therefore it’s permissible to challenge).
Raducanu is brilliant and in no way do I want to contribute to undermining her. Quite the reverse. I want to see her regain her place at the very peak of women’s tennis. But plainly there are *questions arising*, currently, which many of us recognise. Questions that she, as a slam-winner and top, top player, must answer on the court. She knows this, and must also know that this is relatively time-critical. Going down 6-0 in the first set, to a low-ranked player – however good or inspired – is unacceptable. Not preparing sufficiently well is unacceptable. There are nettles to be grasped, broiling kitchens to be endured.
So compete with everything you have – not for us fans or critics, but for you. Compete with maximum effort for maximum honour and personal satisfaction. Show us you love it and need it; that it means everything. Or quit. If it doesn’t make you happy or the grind simply ain’t worth it, quit. That’s a perfectly legitimate option: after you’ve tried like hell.
Let’s do that thing where we infuriate the entire universe of People Who Really Know… Tennis. (I don’t really know tennis but I *do get sport* and I *do* coach and of course this makes me the very worst kind of keyboard warrior: the cod-psychological, smart-arse-know-nowt kind). But on.
Raducanu. I fall into watching her opening round match. It’s looking like it’s in Qatar, but the wind/sun/ failed serve-toss combo might mean Brighton. But no, it is Qatar, so more #sportswashing, in front of plenty media, twelve people and a peregrine falcon or two. (Apols, if that’s offensive stereotyping: but I’m bored of Big Unethical Moneystates scooping up everything – and there was nobody there. Occasionally the spittle, though righteous, will stir).
But Raducanu. Loses. In the first round, again. (A-and yes I know what her ranking is, currently, but c’mon). Then maybe heroically, maybe foolishly takes interview immediately post-game. She acquits herself reasonably well, given the circumstances – 6-0 first set, second lost in tiebreak – but airing the notion that she needs to practice more outdoors and in daylight may not cut it with most of us.
*Thinks*: wot yoo lost (partly) because you weren’t ready for the conditions… of daylight… and some wind? Is that what you’re telling us? (Or, to be fair, it’s one of the things you need to attend to?) Call me an ill-informed, judgemental outsider but there’s a large and hairy WTF quotient looming here, is there not?
You’re a professional athlete – a tennis player. Your job is probably to prepare, eh? For the physical and mental challenges – inevitably, more of that later – and the challenges the environments may pose. The ‘conditions’. Part of the whole bundle is accepting that you can’t control those but (or so) you practice like hell in a variety of situations, so as to maximise your readiness for whatever. Raducanu did imply that maybe she hadn’t trained outdoors enough, in daylight.
The match was lost in the first set, in the sense that the Brit failed to register, against Kalinina, of the Ukraine – listed at no. 237 on the WTA rankings. Appalling Admission no. 862: I didn’t see this set, but for a player of Raducanu’s potential (or quality, or heft?) this was poor. 6-0 is either a significant blip, unacceptable, or catastrophic, depending on your level of investment or tetchiness. And I reckon many of us have become tetchy.
The second set was at least competitive, with the wildcard Brit muscling or easing through to 6 apiece, before wilting in the critical finally rallies. (Raducanu nudged ahead, late-on, to threaten a third set, but a couple of killer unforced errors rather gifted Kalinina the win).
There are arseholes out there who get vitriolically angry, early-doors, thinking about Raducanu. ‘For chrissakes; how can a slam winner with her talent, athleticism and god-given groundstrokes fail so much? It can only be woke weediness. She prob’ly doesn’t even eat meat. She prob’ly didn’t even need all those operations – it’s all in her fekkin’ head!’ These are the unsayable things that people are saying, are they not?
I watched the US Open win - a good lump of the tournament. Raducanu was irresistible in a pret-ty special way. Her backhand was Federeresque; ridiculous and free and endlessly without fear. Her movement was truly excellent. Her temperament seemed largely devoid of doubt. She proper announced herself and it felt like this was on merit; this was a beginning upon which she would surely build. The Fall has been dramatic – or melodramatic, depending on your understanding of the issues (or non-issues?)
We may find ourselves rustling through that unappealing sackload of unsayable stuff. The changing coaches every Wednesday; the hard-to-read flightiness or casual(?) capitulation. The bad results piling up – yup, with the pejorative language.
So is she a prima donna? Is she a spoilt brat – another posh-ish, indulged type? Practically uncoachable, and trapped in her own, feisty-but-vulnerable world? However offensive they may seem – to her, to you – these are questions she needs to answer.
We’ve seen and can see that the playing skills are there but how do we account, generally, for the mentality of champions… and has Raducanu ever had that? If we can answer this mad abstraction in the affirmative, does this increase the likelihood that its absence may be temporary? Was the wonderful surge that was the US just a flush of adrenaline and very temporary liberation into greatness? If so, does that make it a single, divine fluke, in the context of what’s beginning to feel like inevitable disappointments?
I’m as tribal as you lot. I want Emma Raducanu to do well – to reclaim that position, that respect, that maximised self. I have concerns about her mentality: (what other descriptor can we use?) It may be wise to avoid pejorative language in a case where all of confidence, belief and equanimity may be precarious but sustained top-level careers surely need either toughness or the propensity to rebound from the sharpest of setbacks. High-end sport is, of course, exposing.
Raducanu is in the crosshairs because of her notable brilliance, marketability and the psychodrama into which she may have spiralled. She needs to find something, quickly: a long-term, trusted, inspirational coach would be good. A way out or forward and on. This may demand digging deep, fighting the fight, re-building that capacity to play through those clutch moments. Ability is not the issue.
